Hi Georg,
Thank you for your reply.
Actually this time I cannot understand your point of view. Why to go to the Himalaya mountain? What should we do there? Any standard hydrogen- generating electrolyzer (1) is able to satisfy your household energy (heat) needs and (2) is able to work perfectly either in your garage or in your basement or in your backyard or elsewhere in any convenient for you place.
Or may be I did not understand something? If so, please explain and give some more details.
Looking for ward to your answer.
George1
A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1
Moderator: scott
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi Georg,
Where are you, my friend?
Looking forward to your answer (related to my last post.)
Regards,
George
Where are you, my friend?
Looking forward to your answer (related to my last post.)
Regards,
George
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi Georg,
Hi namesake,
We started an interesting discussion in our last posts. I would like to keep discussing.
Looking forward to your answer.
George
Hi namesake,
We started an interesting discussion in our last posts. I would like to keep discussing.
Looking forward to your answer.
George
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi George1,
what I tried to explain you, that you always include an other energy source.
You activate with your heater an other energy source.
Again for example, you take a diesel engine, will it start alone ?
You need a start condition to create the first explosion, your electrical heater can create this explosion, but will it be usefull for you ? no, because you need other construction parts to run the diesel engine in a feedback loop.
The Himalaya example is the same, you produce water from ice, which can later power your turbines to genereate the elecriticity for your electric heater. if you invest less energy to melt the ice than you get from the potential energy then you are a winner to make use of already stored energy from nature.
You can overthink your electrical heater also in an other area, will it work on the panet Venus ?
what I tried to explain you, that you always include an other energy source.
You activate with your heater an other energy source.
Again for example, you take a diesel engine, will it start alone ?
You need a start condition to create the first explosion, your electrical heater can create this explosion, but will it be usefull for you ? no, because you need other construction parts to run the diesel engine in a feedback loop.
The Himalaya example is the same, you produce water from ice, which can later power your turbines to genereate the elecriticity for your electric heater. if you invest less energy to melt the ice than you get from the potential energy then you are a winner to make use of already stored energy from nature.
You can overthink your electrical heater also in an other area, will it work on the panet Venus ?
Best regards
Georg
Georg
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi Georg,
Hi namesake,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, we are talking again about different things. Let us focus on the target again.
Please either have a look at (1) the link https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-el ... 41830/#new (and the related post of January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM) or at (2) the text below.
--------------------------
Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzL ... 22&f=false
--------------------------
For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.
--------------------------
12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 -8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)
--------------------------
The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.
------------------------------
Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.
-----------------------------
And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"
-----------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
-----------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Hi namesake,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, we are talking again about different things. Let us focus on the target again.
Please either have a look at (1) the link https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-el ... 41830/#new (and the related post of January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM) or at (2) the text below.
--------------------------
Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzL ... 22&f=false
--------------------------
For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.
--------------------------
12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 -8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)
--------------------------
The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.
------------------------------
Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.
-----------------------------
And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"
-----------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
-----------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8308agor95 wrote:I am impressed the active members, approx 55, have shown this level of tolerance.
Other guest posters will read this thread and know we are not a bad bunch.
However there are limits.
I for one have no feelings on this thread so any projected feeling being assigned like fear or hate is in the mind of others.
If the thread owner wants a Bessler Forum site members to be more interested then
put forward a better presentation that is relevant to the audience.
I will not clarify this statement as the owner can talk to all his implied team for a way forward.
Cheers
Repeat
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Please have a look again at our post of Sat Jan 11, 2020, 8:20 am
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's basic problem) and against (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's basic problem) and against (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' basic problem)? YES OR NO?
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Deep silence again? :)
I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your answer.
George
I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your answer.
George
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Your question has already been answered and you still ask the question.
What is wrong with you?
silent
What is wrong with you?
silent
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
hi silent,
1) I haven't seen a clear and unambiguous answer yet. You simply distort the situation again. Please don't try to manipulate the audience in a such a simple and clumsy manner!
2) I AM ASKING YOU PERSONALLY! Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your PERSONAL answer!
George1
1) I haven't seen a clear and unambiguous answer yet. You simply distort the situation again. Please don't try to manipulate the audience in a such a simple and clumsy manner!
2) I AM ASKING YOU PERSONALLY! Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your PERSONAL answer!
George1
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
I already answered yes a long time ago.
What is your motive in coming here? You ask questions of people who don't know the answer in many cases.
Quit asking questions and just tell us what you want to tell us.
That is for more productive than asking questions and waiting for answers.
What is the point? What is your point?
silent
What is your motive in coming here? You ask questions of people who don't know the answer in many cases.
Quit asking questions and just tell us what you want to tell us.
That is for more productive than asking questions and waiting for answers.
What is the point? What is your point?
silent
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi silent,
Please don't be nervous, my friend, and don't be angry because this is not good for your health!:) (Please don't be insulted, I am only jokiing.:))
1) Well, a part of our team's aim is to win a public recognition of our conception that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1. And as this forum welcomes overunity conceptions and ideas we hope that here we could find supporters, colleagues and friends with whom to start realizing interesting overunity projects. That's all.
2) Do you know some expert (either in this forum or not) who is brave enough to say YES (because this is the correct answer) to our conception?
Looking forward to your answer.
George
Please don't be nervous, my friend, and don't be angry because this is not good for your health!:) (Please don't be insulted, I am only jokiing.:))
1) Well, a part of our team's aim is to win a public recognition of our conception that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1. And as this forum welcomes overunity conceptions and ideas we hope that here we could find supporters, colleagues and friends with whom to start realizing interesting overunity projects. That's all.
2) Do you know some expert (either in this forum or not) who is brave enough to say YES (because this is the correct answer) to our conception?
Looking forward to your answer.
George
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi I am ignoring this spammer.
How many red dots has he got now?
He should be in the red by now.
All The Best
How many red dots has he got now?
He should be in the red by now.
All The Best
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Hi agor95,
Any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is a heater which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. And I cannot see any spam in this simple and theoretically proved scientific fact. (And it is another song if you are not familiar with the electric engineering theory and practice. Then your only choice is to deny everything and to declare that we are spammers.)
George
Any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is a heater which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. And I cannot see any spam in this simple and theoretically proved scientific fact. (And it is another song if you are not familiar with the electric engineering theory and practice. Then your only choice is to deny everything and to declare that we are spammers.)
George